Bob Robinson reviews and critiques John MacArthur's book, The Truth War, in a five-part series on the Vanguard Church blog. To be fair, I haven't read MacArthur's book, and I'm no particular admirer or detractor of MacArthur. But Robinson's review highlights the problems that someone such as myself--a relative newcomer to postmodern thought--has with critiques by the emerging movement of more traditional, or "modernist," if it must be termed that way, views of truth.
In the first post of the series, Robinson focuses on MacArthur's view of truth:
When Robinson gets around to quoting MacArthur's own definition of truth, in part three of his critique, he finds it agreeable, in his opinion, even to "most of those in the Emerging Church conversation." So why mischaracterize and take issue with MacArthur's view of truth in part one? Don't those in the emerging movement often complain that they are not allowed to define themselves, but rather are wrongly defined by others?
Back in part one, Robinson is arguing that biblical references to "truth" come from a pre-Enlightenment view that is "less tied to propositional statements and more tied to relational witness." I'm not sure how postmoderns know this about premoderns, but the example that Robinson offers is less than compelling. Citing John 8:31-32, Robinson argues that "To MacArthur's modern enlightenment mind, the truth of the teachings is what sets you free," and argues instead that premoderns would have understood rather that "Jesus is the one who sets people free," and concludes that "MacArthur's modernist approach to "truth" disconnects the person of Jesus from his teachings." But has MacArthur ever argued that Jesus' teachings, apart from trusting in Jesus himself, is what sets people free? Is it MacArthur who disconnects the person of Jesus from his teachings, or is it Robinson who does so, attributing the result to MacArthur and his fellow "moderns"?
In part two, Robinson takes MacArthur to task for associating emerging movement figures like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren with the heretics condemned in the book of Jude. Robinson probably has a strong point here; it appears that MacArthur is trying to make an analogy between the situation in Jude and the present-day postmodern controversy, an analogy for which there seems to be little support in the actual text of Jude itself. I am, however, a little dubious of Robinson's citation of a number of passages in which Rob Bell makes reference to "truth," as though that settled the issue, or his horror at the suggestion that false teaching within the church, an issue dealt with all over the New Testament, could be attributed to a contemporary figure or movement.
In part three, Robinson offers the oft-cited objection that postmodernism isn't really about the rejection of objective truth and certainty after all, and so modernist critiques along those lines are misdirected. It seems odd to me that Robinson first and most strongly levels an attack against MacArthur's view of truth, then sidesteps the issue of the problematic postmodern view of truth. Robinson helpfully discusses the postmodern view on its own terms; his points boil down to these:
In the last section of Robinson's series, he attempts to apply MacArthur's reasoning to MacArthur himself, essentially claiming that by MacArthur's standards, he himself would also be a heretic because he adheres to dispensationalism, a relatively new form of biblical interpretation. Robinson later retracted much of what he wrote in this final section, but it is worth commenting that Robinson's critique is quite simply predicated on the assumption that dispensationalism is wrong. Truth may be relational and non-propositional, but falsehood is evidently objective and objectively knowable.
I will repeat what I said at the beginning: I haven't read MacArthur's book, and there may be more to Robinson's critique than appears warranted, based on his quotes of the book. Moreover, as an Arminian Pentecostal, I'm not likely to be especially interested in defending MacArthur. I guess my objective is to show how the emerging critique appears to those outside it, and to show that many of the emerging criticisms can profitably be turned on themselves.
Technorati Tags: Bob Robinson, John MacArthur, Postmodernism, Truth, The Truth War
In the first post of the series, Robinson focuses on MacArthur's view of truth:
MacArthur defines it in a philosophical manner that reflects his modernist, post-Enlightenment mindset. Truth is objective reality; something we can know through objective scientific observation that can be articulated with words that correspond to that objective reality.Already there is room for objection: MacArthur certainly does label truth as "objective reality," but in the section quoted, there is nothing about "objective scientific observation," and I doubt that MacArthur says anything about scientific observation at all. So why is such a view attributed to MacArthur? Well, speaking from a postmodernist frame of reference, I might suspect Robinson of using "word games" to manipulate his readers into an a priori rejection of MacArthur's point of view. For Robinson, MacArthur is a modernist, modernists think in terms of scientific observation, therefore MacArthur is thinking in terms of scientific observation. QED.
When Robinson gets around to quoting MacArthur's own definition of truth, in part three of his critique, he finds it agreeable, in his opinion, even to "most of those in the Emerging Church conversation." So why mischaracterize and take issue with MacArthur's view of truth in part one? Don't those in the emerging movement often complain that they are not allowed to define themselves, but rather are wrongly defined by others?
Back in part one, Robinson is arguing that biblical references to "truth" come from a pre-Enlightenment view that is "less tied to propositional statements and more tied to relational witness." I'm not sure how postmoderns know this about premoderns, but the example that Robinson offers is less than compelling. Citing John 8:31-32, Robinson argues that "To MacArthur's modern enlightenment mind, the truth of the teachings is what sets you free," and argues instead that premoderns would have understood rather that "Jesus is the one who sets people free," and concludes that "MacArthur's modernist approach to "truth" disconnects the person of Jesus from his teachings." But has MacArthur ever argued that Jesus' teachings, apart from trusting in Jesus himself, is what sets people free? Is it MacArthur who disconnects the person of Jesus from his teachings, or is it Robinson who does so, attributing the result to MacArthur and his fellow "moderns"?
In part two, Robinson takes MacArthur to task for associating emerging movement figures like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren with the heretics condemned in the book of Jude. Robinson probably has a strong point here; it appears that MacArthur is trying to make an analogy between the situation in Jude and the present-day postmodern controversy, an analogy for which there seems to be little support in the actual text of Jude itself. I am, however, a little dubious of Robinson's citation of a number of passages in which Rob Bell makes reference to "truth," as though that settled the issue, or his horror at the suggestion that false teaching within the church, an issue dealt with all over the New Testament, could be attributed to a contemporary figure or movement.
In part three, Robinson offers the oft-cited objection that postmodernism isn't really about the rejection of objective truth and certainty after all, and so modernist critiques along those lines are misdirected. It seems odd to me that Robinson first and most strongly levels an attack against MacArthur's view of truth, then sidesteps the issue of the problematic postmodern view of truth. Robinson helpfully discusses the postmodern view on its own terms; his points boil down to these:
- Those who claim absolute truth often use violence to foist that truth upon others;
- Those who claim absolute truth often change that truth over time;
- Modernity deified reason, and thus sought to prove faith claims by way of logic, thus making faith subservient to reason.
Why does MacArthur insist that the Emerging Church is full of hard postmodernists? Is it because if he builds a straw man out of the Emerging Church by labeling them hard postmodernists, he can easily burn them down?It would seem as reasonable to ask, "Why does Robinson insist that the traditional church is full of hard modernists--i.e., those who think objective reality is to be discovered solely by scientific observation, use violence to foist their vision of truth on others, divorce the teachings from the person of Jesus, and make faith subservient to reason? Perhaps most of us are soft modernists, or even chastened subjectivists. If there is a failure to apply distinctions, it is a failure to which we are all subject.
In the last section of Robinson's series, he attempts to apply MacArthur's reasoning to MacArthur himself, essentially claiming that by MacArthur's standards, he himself would also be a heretic because he adheres to dispensationalism, a relatively new form of biblical interpretation. Robinson later retracted much of what he wrote in this final section, but it is worth commenting that Robinson's critique is quite simply predicated on the assumption that dispensationalism is wrong. Truth may be relational and non-propositional, but falsehood is evidently objective and objectively knowable.
I will repeat what I said at the beginning: I haven't read MacArthur's book, and there may be more to Robinson's critique than appears warranted, based on his quotes of the book. Moreover, as an Arminian Pentecostal, I'm not likely to be especially interested in defending MacArthur. I guess my objective is to show how the emerging critique appears to those outside it, and to show that many of the emerging criticisms can profitably be turned on themselves.
Technorati Tags: Bob Robinson, John MacArthur, Postmodernism, Truth, The Truth War
Keith,
ReplyDeleteYour interaction with my review is very insightful and helpful. Excuse this very long comment...Your excellent post deserves it. I'm writing this not to be defensive or to pick a fight; it is a sincere desire to seek clarity.
(1)
Your first point is well taken: I state rather forcefully that MacArthur sees truth as “something we can know through objective scientific observation that can be articulated with words that correspond to that objective reality.” You ask, “in the section quoted, there is nothing about ‘objective scientific observation,’ and I doubt that MacArthur says anything about scientific observation at all. So why is such a view attributed to MacArthur?”
That’s a good question. Nowhere does MacArthur say it in these words. He says, instead, “Modern thought discounted the idea of the supernatural and looked for scientific and rationalistic explanations for everything. But modern thinkers retained their belief that knowledge of the truth was possible. They were still seeking universal and absolute truths that applied to everyone. Scientific methodologies became the chief means by with modern people sought to gain knowledge.” He goes on to explain the “devastating repercussions” of modernity in the world stemming from “Darwinism, Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism, and theological liberalism” (pp. 9-10).
Then he talks of postmodernism by saying that it is primarily marked by the dismissal of the possibility of any sure and settled knowledge of truth, and spends the majority of the book offering a scathing rebuttal of the postmodern position.
When he earlier said that “ultimate truth is an objective reality,” I need to ask the question, “How do we objectively observe this reality?” MacArthur’s answer would be, Biblical Revelation - “God has revealed Himself and His truth with sufficient clarity.”
I agree with that. But that still begs the questions, “How do we objectively observe the reality on the pages of Scripture?” “And how do I know that MacArthur has the absolutely correct interpretation?” MacArthur states, “Whatever is true—whatever is objectively and ontologically true—is true whether any given individual understands it, likes it, or receives it as truth. In other words, because reality is crated and truth is defined by God, what is really true is true for everyone, regardless of anyone’s personal perspective or individual preferences. These days, however, people are experimenting with subjective, relativistic ideas of truth and labeling them ‘Christian.’”
So, it comes to this: MacArthur’s view of truth is absolutely correct. He has the ability to objectively observe that truth in such a way that he can have absolute confidence that he’s got it. How does he have this ability? It can either be: (a) A Mystical Direct Line to God’s Mind, or (b) The Use of Reason and Scientific Observation to Determine What is Objectively Observable.
He may have (a), but I think he’s using (b).
What do you think?
(2)
Second, you ask, “But has MacArthur ever argued that Jesus' teachings, apart from trusting in Jesus himself, is what sets people free? Is it MacArthur who disconnects the person of Jesus from his teachings, or is it Robinson who does so, attributing the result to MacArthur and his fellow ‘moderns’?”
MacArthur says, quite clearly, “To reject the propositional content of the gospel is to forfeit saving faith, period.”
How else should I take this besides that MacArthur believes that teachings (that is, propositional statements) is what saves, and that this can be detached from the person of Jesus alone? I am simply trying to hold onto Sola Fide and Sola Christos here. Nowhere am I supposed to maintain Sola Propositional Truth!
What do you think?
(3)
Third, I am not horrified "at the suggestion that false teaching" is in the contemporary church. I’d call things as obvious as universalism false teaching; I’d call more subtle things like the prosperity gospel false teaching. But I think you’d agree that Jude’s words in verse 4 are very precise: He is damning “certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago,” they have “secretly slipped in among” the Christians. “They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” To say that this is true of any Christian pastor or author, MacArthur had better have a load of evidence, or else we in the church have the right to say that the accuser is guilty of breaking the ninth commandment, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
(4)
Fourth, You write, “Robinson contends that ‘MacArthur’s presumption is that the Emerging Church is filled with hard postmodernists.’ Once again, I wonder whether MacArthur ever actually said as much.”
Well, MacArthur did write, “The fact that our knowledge grows fuller and deeper—and we all therefore change our minds about some things as we gain more and more light—doesn’t mean that everything we know is uncertain, outdated, or in need of an overhaul every few years.” Nowhere in Grenz, Franke, or Armstrong will you find this kind of hard postmodernist position. They all assert that there are plenty of things that can be certain from God’s revelation, a position close to MacArthur’s own position. So to caricature them as hard postmodernists is a false accusation.
(5)
Fifth,
you say, “It would seem as reasonable to ask, ‘Why does Robinson insist that the traditional church is full of hard modernists’.”
Touché! I grant you that one! MacArthur is no more a hard modernist than I am a hard postmodernist. I definitely agree there. Thanks for that clarification!
(6)
Last,
You write, “it is worth commenting that Robinson's critique is quite simply predicated on the assumption that dispensationalism is wrong. Truth may be relational and non-propositional, but falsehood is evidently objective and objectively knowable.”
Again, a GREAT point! If I were a hard postmodernist, you’d have me.
But, again, I am NOT a hard postmodernist, as most in the Emerging Church are not hard postmodernists. The “Truth War,” therefore, is a boogeyman. We are not disregarding truth. We are incessantly in search of truth. And when we find that which appears to be false, we are not afraid to name it as so.
This is my big beef with MacArthur’s whole premise: He insists that The Emerging Church is destroying “truth.” But the reality is that we realize that the modern confidence in “truth” is very suspicious, and we had better be aware of the things that are at play when people are so adamant that they know absolute truth.
Again, THANK YOU for your reading this series and for your great way of thinking through these things! I wish we could talk face-to-face so that we could sharpen each other more. In writing this comment, know that I am not trying to pick any fights or being defensive. I appreciate your insightful post.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteHow could I think you were picking a fight, with such a gracious and thoughtful response? Thank you for the interaction.
To answer your, "What do you think," on each item,
1) I'm guessing you have MacArthur's view of truth pretty closely pinned. He would probably say he is relying on the analogy of scripture and plain reason (which is what Luther relied upon), rather than scientific observation, but your point is well taken.
I guess I would say that for some of us, it is important to believe that objective truth exists apart from anyone's opinion of it, even if it can't be perfectly known by anyone in particular. I'd say it's perfectly known by God and imperfectly known by the rest of us. If I'm in relationship with God, and God knows what ultimate truth is, and helps me to know what I need to know of it, then I guess that's enough. Maybe that's the "chastened foundationalism" you spoke of.
2) Propositional statements about the person and work of Jesus are different than "Jesus' teachings." For instance, Paul writes that "If Christ is not raised, our preaching is vain and you are dead in your sins." So isn't it the case that to believe in Jesus necessarily involves believing certain basic facts about him--at least that he died and rose? I suspect that that's what MacArthur means by "the propositional content of the gospel," not Jesus' teachings divorced from his person.
3) I agree that applying Jude's words to anyone in particular is pretty serious stuff. On the other hand, the heretics Jude discusses “secretly slipped in”; I doubt that their heresy was very obvious and identifiable at the time.
Honestly, I think that what MacArthur, Carson, et al are afraid of is a repeat of the crisis of Protestant Liberalism, in which traditional Christian language was reinterpreted out of all recognition. They're afraid that the EC doesn't mean what it says when it does affirm traditional Christian truth claims, since from their point of view, the pomo understanding of truth is wobbly at best.
4) I haven't read Grenz, Franke, or Armstrong. (Honestly, I'm handicapped in all of this--I don't have the money or time to read up on all the books necessary to make sense of the whole pomo issue.) I'm sure that what you say is fair enough. But I still think it's more of an issue of failing to understand the distinctions between "hard" and "soft" varieties of postmodernism. Rather than the story of MacArthur creating a strawman to burn down, would you be willing to consider the story of MacArthur (and others like him and maybe me) reading the types of things that some in the EC are saying and honestly coming to the conclusion that it sounds like hard postmodernism to us?
5) It appears that all of us need to understand the nuances of one another's positions better. Maybe we could find more to agree on and less ammunition against one another.
6) Good point! And here you see my failure to understand the distinctions, and the rationale behind them. We can't just affirm propositional truth when it suits us and deny it (or profess ignorance) when it suits us. There must be some rationale why we can be sure of this, but not that.
Anyway, I'm very grateful for you to take the time to engage me like this. I also wish we had the opportunity to engage one another face to face. God bless.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
1) You've articulated exactly my position on truth (check it out at the link below).
2) I agree that there are propositional statements that are true (for instance, Christ died and resurrected). Good point.
3) Maybe for some in the EC there is a wobbly understanding of truth. But I think that can be said of many movements in the Christian Church. The EC is not a monolith; it has a wide spectrum of beliefs. This is not a denomination or a creed. To damn us all as false teachers is a brazen way for MacArthur to voice his concerns.
4) I'd be willing to consider that you and others may be reading the types of things that some in the EC are saying and honestly coming to the conclusion that it sounds like hard postmodernism. But MacArthur, if he is going to have the hubris to write a whole book condemning the whole thing, had better research what they are really saying, and had better interact with their real arguments for understanding and engaging the postmodern turn. Instead, he treats them as people to be dismissed out-of-hand as apostates.
For an overview of postmodernity, you can read my series, "Toward a Proper Christian Response to Postmodernity".
Or an overview of what the Emerging Church really is, you can read Scot McKnight's lecture at Westminster Seminary, "What is the Emerging Church?"
Thanks again for your post and your great dialog.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the gracious and positive interaction. I'll read your piece soon. I read Scot's piece soon after it came out and found it immensely helpful.
I've been deeply grateful to Scot because he seems to articulate the EC positions in a way that an outsider like me can understand and appreciate. You seem to be another such person. When I was first introduced to the whole emerging thing, the "conversation" sounded like a closed circle, and if you didn't get the buzzwords, you weren't "in" (which seemed to be an odd position for people seeking to reach out to the disaffected). Because of people like you and Scot, I feel that I can participate and learn, even if I don't completely understand or agree with everything.
Thanks once again.
Keith